Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42866202›Full record

ArticleiScience2026

Seeing the forest for the scenarios: Using decision trees to draw conclusions from large energy scenario sets.

Florian Baader, Stefano Moret, Wolfram Wiesemann, Iain Staffell, André Bardow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Florian BaaderEnergy and Process Systems Engineering, Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Stefano MoretEnergy and Process Systems Engineering, Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Wolfram WiesemannImperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Iain StaffellCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, UK.
André BardowEnergy and Process Systems Engineering, Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Energy transition studies often present hundreds of scenarios, yielding large datasets that are challenging to interpret. Alternative approaches define a few qualitative storylines, which are more accessible but disconnected from model-based evidence. Here, we show that decision trees, a popular machine learning technique, bridge this disconnect by distilling numerous scenarios into a small set of interpretable storylines centered around policy-relevant levers. We demonstrate this approach across three global and European case studies: First, we translate 1000 integrated assessment model scenarios into three storylines distinguished by their degrees of heating and industry electrification. Second, we show that 2°C warming pathways with continued fossil fuel usage only work under unusually mild climate responses. Third, we use 441 European pathways to show that high bioenergy or electrification are required for cost-effective climate neutrality. Our transferable approach helps decision-makers interpret large scenario sets by revealing how policy-relevant outputs are associated with different transition pathways.

Indexed as

decision-makingdecision treesenergy planningenergy systemsmachine learningmodelingstakeholdersuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID42866202
PMCPMC13657154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.